Just to be clear, the reason I selected 'PRO' for this topic, is only because I agree that Obama supports some socialist ideals...specifically the idea of spreading around the wealth. I do NOT agree with his idea to spread around this wealth. I have talked with many people in the forum who have gone so far as to argue against Obama having an idea of spreading the wealth around and I find that to be shocking because, to me, it is an absolute fact. I do welcome anyone who cares to argue that Obama does not support spreading around the wealth, though I would be shocked if anyone actually took such a stand.

Merriam-Webster online has described socialism as being "...distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." as well as "...government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

This definition nearly spells out word for word that the government which takes money from it's people and spreads it around to others is a socialist ideal. Obama has specifically expressed his support of spreading the wealth around, and this is a socialist tendency.

This debate is about Obama and his views. Not a topic to argue what Socialism may or may not include.

I would be shocked if someone accepted this challenge because as I said, they would attempt to argue against a pure fact that Obama supports spreading around the wealth, but I surely welcome anyone who wishes to accept.

This is my first debate, so I hopefully I can keep up. Good luck to you!

"Merriam-Webster online has described socialism as being "...distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." as well as "...government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

This definition nearly spells out word for word that the government which takes money from it's people and spreads it around to others is a socialist ideal. Obama has specifically expressed his support of spreading the wealth around, and this is a socialist tendency."

While this definition does define a purely socialist ideaology, this is not the sole ideaology of Barack Obama and his administration.

All democratic countries have some form of taking money from its people and distributing it unequally among its citizens in the form of taxes. Yet these countries are not socialist nor do they promote socialist ideaologies. They follow a system of a mixed economy (Keynesian economics). Essentially, a mixed economy borrows and examines ideas from both extremes: both socialism AND capitalism to try to attain some optimal level (1).

What Barack Obama is doing is bringing the USA back into its optimal level through the ideaology of a mixed economy. If for any reason it seems like he endorses a socialist viewpoint of "spreading the wealth" it is only because he is rectifiying the many years of undoing of the mixed economy as a result of a strictly capatalist idealogy spread by his predecessor George W. Bush. Now that it is has been pushed so far into the capalist ideaology, it needs to be greatly reeled back into its optimal level by pushing some socialist views until a equalibrium (or as close to) can be met.

Therefore, I conclude by stating the Barack Obama does not endorse "spreading the wealth" from a strictly socialist viewpoint, but rather from a mixed economy viewpoint.

I am confused by my opponents back and forth style rhetoric. The idea of a mixed economy that he speaks of does not relate to spreading the wealth around, it relates to an economy that is mixed with both private and public industry. It does not have a clear definition but is summarized as a mixture of capitalism and socialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Even if one would extrapolate that a mixed economy includes spreading the wealth around, that would be the socialist side of a mixed economy.

My opponent is focusing on the wrong point though, the term 'socialist idea' used in R1 is only used to describe Obama's ideal of 'spreading around the wealth'. This is not a debate to argue what type of economy we have in this country or who's predecessor had which ideals; though Bush spent a ton of government money and was far from a capitalist.

That said, I find it necessary to point out an error in my opponents argument. He stated, "All democratic countries have some form of taking money from its people and distributing it unequally among its citizens in the form of taxes." That has nothing to do with how America was created. Our country did not have tax on income for nearly the first century of its existence. Only until funding for the Civil War was needed did the income of it's people get taxed. It is important to note that this 'war tax' also expired after the war ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The tax was not intended for social programs and was also a flat tax; it was a tax specifically for the war. In fact, the 16th amendment, which alters the constitution to make it legal for the federal government to tax income, was only added about a century ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Clearly our country, a democratic country, does not need to be based on taxing and unequal distributing of that tax to its citizens. I need to get back on topic, but felt it necessary to explain an errant point made by my opponent even if it is off topic. The point of this question is that Obama thinks it is a good idea to spread the wealth around. I can understand my opponent avoiding this topic because it is a fact that Obama thinks it is good to spread around the wealth. Though, if he decides to continue making a debate in round 2, I would please ask him to either concede the point that Obama thinks it is a good idea to spread around the wealth, or to show facts as to how he can disprove the topic of this debate.

I would like to welcome my opponent to this page. It is a wonderful place to have debates and express thought. I have only been here about a month myself and have met many great people and have had many classy debates. I expect a classy and educated debate for this topic and also welcome my opponent to debate me again on other issues or find many of the other great people on here to debate as well.

This is not too surprising however, because it is an absolute fact that Obama supports the exact topic typed in the subject. There is very little my opponent can due in terms of debating what Obama has previously admitted. Please take a moment to watch this 28 sec video clip and listen to Obama's very own words. He specifically says, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." ()

With Obama himself specifically admitting, in his own words, that he supports the idea of spreading the wealth around, there is no retort further in this debate.

I do wish my opponent the best of luck in his future debates and welcome him to debate with me on another topic in the future. Thank you to all who have taken their time to read this debate and view this short video clip which lets everyone hear Obama's own words proving the 'pro' side of this debate. Enjoy your day.

I apologize for not continuing on in the second round of the debate. After reading my opponents rebuttal I had no counter arguments of my own. Great job opponent, and I apologize to everyone else. I think I have much to learn! Hopefully I can continue to learn here from some of you.

CogitoErgoCogitoSum -- you clearly have no idea how our country was founded if you think they were socialists. The people depended on themselves or maybe their neighbors...NOT the huge government.

you may be glad to have socialism....but that is a recipe for failure. What incentive is there for someone to work and succeed if they can put forth no effort and get the same result? care to answer that?!?! its a simple question...but some how I don't expect you to have a simple answer to it.

clearly you and I don't agree on MANY issues....care to start up a debate of sorts...any ideas?? you haven't accepted any of my 3 most recent debates that were open when you made comments....BUT you felt the need to make comments on all of them...so maybe you do not like getting involved in debates...but if you do---share some topic ideas with me and lets fine something good to debate. would you be interested in a debate...or do you just comment where it can be unregulated??

I side with Socialism. Maybe even communism. I do agree with you that Obama has socialist ideals, thus I wont take con. But I also believe this to be a good thing. Im glad we are becoming more socialist. Some things, such as education, legal representation (and the quality thereof) and medical care, in addition to clean water, metro transit, basic nutritional needs... should not be commodities to be bought and sold. We as a nation were not founded as a capitalist nation... we were founded as a republic which serves the peoples interests - the rights to life and liberty, the inalienable human rights.... positive rights, not privileges and not commodities. THAT, is the moral and ethical and *democratic* thing to do. People fear socialism for the same reason they fear anything else - change is bad because its new, and change that undermines the powers that be is even worse (even if you as an individual are not powerful or influential, you still have a certain degree of hopefulness and comfort in the system). People like the system just so long as they have the delusion of one day being at the top. But it s corrupt: the poor cant get quality medical, represented in court by law-school near-drop-outs that couldnt get picked up at a reputable firm and the inexperienced working for cheap - good luck being found innocent if you are. The unemployed starve in the gutters because we are too "ethical" to be socialist... we care for the "big picture" of the capitalist system only when we see ourselves as part of it. Greedy cops, judges and politicians are in the back pockets of big industry... and the argument against communism is that it is corruptible. HA. Capitalism is just as bad if not worse on the corruption spectrum, except it is more stable. Communism at least aims to serve the people. Capitalisms stability is not inherent to the system, its instead caused by citizen compliance. Communisms fail because politicians and citizens both remain capitalist at heart.